accent levelling helen faye west
DESCRIPTION
Accent levelling helen faye westTRANSCRIPT
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
1/20
is is a contribution from Language Variation European Perspectives IV. Selected papersfrom the Sixth International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 6),Freiburg, June 2011.Edited by Peter Auer, Javier Caro Reina and Gz Kaufmann. . John Benjamins Publishing Company
is electronic file may not be altered in any way.e author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies tobe used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessibleto members (students and staff) only of the authors/s institute, it is not permitted to postthis PDF on the open internet.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from thepublishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
John Benjamins Publishing Company
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
2/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
A town between dialects
Accent levelling, psycho-social orientation
andidentity in Merseyside, UK
Helen Faye WestUniversity of York
Speakers psycho-social orientation and social knowledge have oen been
identified as having an important role in linguistic change. We know, for
example, that speakers adoption of linguistic features from a neighbouring
region oen correlates with their positive social orientation towards that
region (Llamas 2007), and that their social orientation can be discussed with
reference to their interpretation of physical, political and social boundaries
(Llamas 2010). Southport, located 17 miles north of the large industrial city
of Liverpool, is historically an independent borough but was absorbed into
Merseyside in 1974. Southport and Liverpool are well connected by frequent
transport links and, given the high levels of contact between people, it has been
predicted that phonetic features of the Liverpool accent will diffuse into the
traditional Lancashire accent of Southport (Grey & Richardson 2007). However, a
complicating factor is Liverpools negative stereotype (Montgomery 2007), which
may be predicted to act as a barrier to the diffusion of Liverpool features.
is paper aims to analyse the diffusion of two local Liverpool features
the lenition of intervocalic and word-final /t/ and /k/ in speech from a corpus
of 39speakers stratified by age, gender and socio-economic status. I show that
despite the links between the two locations, the features of Liverpool are not
diffusing into Southport speech as rapidly as originally hypothesised. e second
aim is to investigate whether there is a correlation between speakers language use
and their spatial mobility patterns by mapping their external (contact) and
extra-linguistic (attitudinal) behaviour onto their linguistic production. I show
that varying patterns of contact could provide an explanation for the reduced
level of diffusion of Liverpool features.
In conclusion, I argue that understanding speakers psycho-social
orientations and social awareness, in conjunction with correlative patterns of
speech production is crucial for explaining language change.1
. I would like to thank Paul Kerswill, Kevin Watson, Eivind Torgesen and Lynn Clark for
their helpful suggestions in regard to this paper.
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
3/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
Helen Faye West
. Introduction
Sociolinguistic study has increasingly been concerned with urban areas that besthighlight the nexus between social and linguistic factors that drive linguistic
change. Williams and Kerswill (1999)comparative research on three towns, which
varied according to the degree of mobility of their inhabitants, demonstrated the
importance of contact and identity in influencing dialect levelling. More recently,
increased attention has been paid to areas which lie near political boundaries, as
it in these areas that the effects of speaker attitudes and perception are heightened
(Beal 2010).
Southport was once an independent borough. However, under the Local
Government White Paper in 1971, the town was set to lose its borough status andbecome a district within Lancashire. is would have cost the town control of its
public and social services. Instead, Southport Corporation opted for inclusion into
the Metropolitan Borough of Seon in Merseyside (see Figure 1) to keep control
of its schools and services (cf. Grey & Richardson 2007).
Southport
Figure 1. Location of Southport and the Merseyside Border
As discussed in more detail below, however, the inclusion of Southport into
Merseyside is not only interesting in terms of the identity difficulties it poses for its
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
4/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
A town between dialects
inhabitants (cf.Llamas 2007study of Middlesbrough) but also the towns perceived
affiliation with Liverpool subsequent to this. Liverpool, approximately 17 miles to
the south of the town, is home to the largely negatively perceived Scouse accent(see Montgomery 2007). Hence, the current study poses three questions; (a) what
is the hypothesised direction of linguistic change based on patterns of contact
and linguistic diffusion?, (b) what is the actual direction of change? and (c) can
attitudinal factors be seen to affect the direction of change?
Indeed, based on population and distance, we might expect that Liverpool
would have a greater influence on Southport than the smaller Lancashire city of
Preston, 9 miles to the north-west. As Trudgill (1974) demonstrates in his study
of five towns within a small rural peninsula in Norway, the linguistic similarities
ofvowel variation in these towns successfully accounts for the patterns of linguis-tic change through hierarchical diffusion. e variant frequencies and variation
patterns in these towns pointed to small towns assimilating to nearby large towns,
before innovations filter down to smaller settlements within that area. In order
to formalise the process of diffusion, Trudgill posits the following equation (as
schematised in Boberg 2000: 2):
Iij =S ((Pi Pj) (dij)) (Pi Pj)
(Iij = influence of center i on center j, P = population, d = distance, S = index oflinguistic similarity)
Ignoring the index of similarity for the time being, based on population and
proximity alone, Liverpool is posited to have twice the potential influence on
Southport than Preston, as shown below:
Liverpool= ((469017 91404)/289) (469017/91404) = 761165903.876
Preston= ((184836 91404)/81) (184836/91404) = 421782057.771
As this paper will now discuss in detail however, the hypothesised pattern
of convergence can be intercepted by the extra-linguistic processes of speaker
orientation and attitude.
. Political boundaries: A potential barrier to levelling?
As Britain (2010: 200) states, numerous studies have been carried out on peripheral
and/or border towns on the assumption that it is in these regions where we may
well find increasingly heightened diversity. Such predictions have been made
for places along the Scottish-English border; as Glauser (1974) and Kay (1986)
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
5/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
Helen Faye West
hypothesise, the already divergent dialects either side of border look set to diverge
further (Llamas 2010: 230).
In response to this claim, Llamas (2010) investigates the production of theindexically Scottish feature of rhoticity in coda position (Maguire et al. 2008)
analysing two major towns in Scotland and two in England in close proximity to
the border. Strikingly, despite derhotacisation in most urban Scottish varieties,
increased rhoticity was found in the speech of the young Eyemouth participants
(located north-east of the border), whilst all other localities in both Scotland and
England demonstrated a decrease in this variant. In conjunction with the attitudi-
nal data collected, the study concludes that this divergence is created in response
to a desire to sound Scottish as opposed to English.
Similarly,Bobergs (2000) study analyses 12 cities either side of the USCanadaborder, which is claimed to have long been a linguistic barrier of considerable
influence, just as it is a cultural divider (Chambers 2000: 118).2Taking Trudgills
(1974) model as an initial hypothesis for linguistic convergence, the model predicts
that the city of Windsor in Eastern Ontario should be completely assimilated to
Detroit within one generation, due to the population and proximity of the two
cities (Boberg 2000: 8).3 Despite this predicted trend of convergence, however,
both cities were found to remain distinct in terms of their phonetic output. Boberg
(2000: 23) concludes that the reason for this is the effect of the border and theheightened sense of otherness this provides. He states:
[i]n general, it seems safe to say that Canadians do not want to sound like
Americans, so that when a variant is marked [+American] rather than, say,
[+young] or [+trendy] it will not be readily transferred.
It is clear from these studies that extra-linguistic processes, such as speaker attitude
and identity, can intercept the projected direction of diffusion. As Labov (1972)
concludes in relation to his study of Marthas Vineyard, a larger center can have an
influence on a smaller one if the inhabitants of the smaller one hold a positive sub-jective evaluation of the larger center (Boberg 2000: 23). Indeed, Vandekerckhove
et al. (2009) affirm that whilst on a national level many European countries, nota-
bly Norway, are displaying regional rather than local levelling to display regional
affiliation, the opposite is true in the Netherlands, where dialects are used as a
more localised identity marker, and vary due to numerous social factors such as
region, age, class and so on.
. is is similarly attested by Llamas (2010: 231) who states, It is also clear that as far as the
attribution of national identity is concerned, linguistic behaviour is central to a categorisation.
. As Boberg (2000) claims that due to the perception in the media, Ontarians perceive
alinguistic similarity between the two cities.
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
6/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
A town between dialects
In relation to the current study, therefore, the town of Southport is particu-
larly well placed to further assess these claims, not only due to the presence of the
political boundary, but due also to the dialect of the largest centre of influence Scouse , being one of the most negatively perceived accents of English-English
(Montgomery 2007).
. Linguistic variables
In the light of the potential influence of the Liverpool Scouse dialect, numerous
supra-local accent features were selected for analysis. ese have, so far, shown
resistance to more widely spread levelling processes. For example, Watson
(2007) states that glottal stop occurs comparatively infrequently when comparedto its presence in other dialects across Britain (Stuart-Smith 1999; Kerswill &
Williams 2000).
e variables /t/ and /k/ are particularly interesting in Scouse as they are
subject to lenition (footnote), as schematised by Honeybone (2001: 242) below:
0 1 2 (3 4)
stop affricate fricative (h elision)
t t
/ts
/s (h )k kx x
e lenition of these forms is conditioned by both prosodic and melodic
features, such that, in the case of 0 2, the [ _#] (word-final) and [Vcm_(V)] (foot-
internal, post-stress) environments (see Table 1) are the most lenition-promoting
contexts in the Scouse dialect (Honeybone 2001).
Table 1. Lenition promoting environments and possible realisations of /t/ and /k/
Non-Scouse Scouse
/t/ [Vv] better [] [t] [ts] [s]
[V_#(V)] but it [] [t] [ts] [s] []
[V_##] what [] [t] [ts] [s] [h]
/k/ [Vv] speaker [k] [kx] [x]
[V_#(V)] look at [k] [kx] [x]
[V_##] like [k] [kx] [x]
Lenition of [t] [h], otherwise known as debuccalisation, and /t/ /r/
arenot only constrained to the phonological environments shown above but are
also lexically constrained (see Honeybone 2001; Clark & Watson 2011). For the
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
7/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
Helen Faye West
purposes of this paper, however, they have not been included in the frequency
data, which show the distribution across all environments.
is paper will examine if these lenited forms are increasingly present inthe Southport dialect, as Trudgills model of diffusion might predict, or whether
the dialect is converging to other broader levelling processes, such as glottal
replacement of [t].
. Methodology
. Speaker sample
e speakers were stratified by age and gender, as shown in Table 2. Data were also
collected from archive recordings; hence, whilst a linguistic assessment of these
older speakers was possible, contact patterns and attitude data were not available.4
Table 2. Stratification of speaker sample
Younger Middle Older
1619 4055 70+ (Archive)
MiddleClass
WorkingClass
MiddleClass
WorkingClass
MiddleClass
WorkingClass
Female 4 4 4 4 2 1
Male 4 4 5 4 1 2
Informants had to have lived in Southport all of their lives, and age was
divided emically, with the middle age group being the first generation to witness
the change of the political boundary at a very young age. Interviews were mainlyconducted in pairs with age-groups and social class kept distinct.
. Data elicitation
Informants were recorded responding to an identity questionnaire (Stoddart et al.
1999; Llamas 2007) which elicited both overt and covert attitudes. Informants were
asked their opinions about the surrounding region and the people of Southport,
Preston and Liverpool, before being asked overtly about their attitudes towards
. Archive material provided by the North West Sound Archive. All speakers were born 1930
or earlier and were recorded in 2002.
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
8/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
A town between dialects
the dialects to be found here. In addition informants were asked how oen they
visited these cities for work, family, friends, shopping and so on; the interview last-
ing approximately 4060 minutes. Auditory and acoustic analysis of the linguisticoutput was undertaken using Praat (Boersma & Weenink 2009).
. Results
. Social and linguistic variation in /t/
10
0
20
30
40
50
60
70
8090
100
MC
Female
n = 280
Younger Middle Older
MC
Male
WC
Female
WC
Male
MC
Female
MC
Male
WC
Female
WC
Male
MC
Female
MC
Male
WC
Female
WC
Male
n = 330 n = 421 n = 446 n = 245 n = 242 n = 403 n = 185 n = 269 n = 80 n = 119 n = 180
Non-Scouse
Scouse
Figure 2. Realisation of /t/: All linguistic environments, distribution according to age, gender
and class in Southport (%)
e decrease of Scouse variants over time, as shown in Figure 2, is striking as
we see 30% less [ts] and [s] production from middle age speech to younger speech,
despite the prediction of the diffusion model. e effect of speaker age on its own
is highly significant (p = 0.001).5Moreover, if we were to look at the non-Scousevariants in isolation we would see that younger speakers produce 90% glottal
stop (p = 0.02), which as mentioned above is relatively infrequent in Liverpool
speech. e older speakers, on the other hand, demonstrate less than 10% usage
[]. Speaker class and sex were insignificant in variant distribution (p = 0.4 and
p=0.3, respectively).
Linguistic environment (Figure 3) has a highly significant effect on variant
distribution. Word medial position appears to be the most promoting environ-
ment for Scouse features, with 40% usage of [ts] and [s] (p = 0.0001). In word
. All statistical analyses were done using logistical regression mixed effect models in
R2.14.1. with speaker and word as a random effect.
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
9/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
Helen Faye West
final environments there is a considerable increase in glottal stop, in particular in
[V_##], which demonstrates 80% usage of this variant (p = 0.001). We see most
clearly the complementary distribution of glottal stop in relation to the Scousevariants in this environment, as the spirantised variant [s] is practically non-
existent here (p=0.0002). Moreover, this is not due to any other rival variant such
as the aforementioned [h], which barely appears in Southport speech. Overall, the
reduction of the Scouse variants in both the social and linguistic environment data
is highly indicative of divergence between Southport and Scouse.
n = 771
[V_#V] [V_v] [V_#v] [V_##]
n = 606 n = 805 n = 1018
Non-Scouse []
Non-Scouse [th]
Scouse [ts]
Scouse [s]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7080
90
100
Figure 3. Realisation of /t/ according to linguistic environment (%)
. Social and linguistic variation in /k/
10
0
20
30
40
5060
70
80
90
100
MC
Female
n = 126
Younger Middle Older
MC
Male
WC
Female
WC
Male
MC
Female
MC
Male
WC
Female
WC
Male
MC
Female
MC
Male
WC
Female
WC
Male
n = 120 n = 143 n = 113 n = 72 n = 74 n = 110 n = 54 n = 98 n = 31 n = 57 n = 77
Non-Scouse
Scouse
Figure 4. Realisation of /k/: all linguistic environments, according to age, gender and class in
Southport (%)
Of immediate interest in Figure 4 is the emergence of an unexpected glottal/
velar stop variant. Although this variants distribution is significantly governed
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
10/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
A town between dialects
by age (p = 0.0006) glottal /k/ is still relatively unusual in comparison to glottal
/t/, and so does not dominate in the younger speech. Moreover, on closer inves-
tigation, it appears that this variant is particularly favoured in discursive usage oflike, which is a frequent discourse marker in younger speech but not in the older
groups (Figure 6, below).
In comparison to /t/ we do not find a dramatic decrease of the Scouse
variants over time. Indeed speaker age has a highly significant effect on
variant distribution (p = 0.0001). As we can see in Figure 4, other than its high
frequency in the speech of middle aged males, its use appears to be increas-
ing. Older speakers, on the other hand, demonstrate on average 60% usage
of[k], showing a clear preference for this form over Scouse variants. Speaker
sex (p=0.0001) and class (p = 0.0001) also proved highly significant in thedistribution of Scouse variants. As Figure 4 demonstrates, in younger speech,
the Scouse variants are predominantly used by working class speakers, with
sex displaying little variation here, whilst amongst the middle age speakers, the
middle class males display 70% usage of [kx] and [x] followed by the working
class males who show 55% usage.
Similar to the distribution of the variants of /t/, the distribution of Scouse
variants in Figure 5 is comparatively high in intervocalic position; particularly
in [V_V]. Given this observation it is perhaps reasonable to suggest that thisdistribution is indicative of a connected speech process (cf. Shockey 2003: 28).
Indeed the production of the fricative Scouse variant is much closer to a velar [x]
rather than the uvular [] variant, which is increasingly used in Scouse speech
(Watson 2007). However, the distribution of the Scouse variants only proved
significant in word final, pre-pausal position (p = 0.0004), where the fricative form
is considerably reduced.
n = 233
[V_#V] [V_v] [V_#v] [V_##]
n = 315 n = 240 n = 297
Non-Scouse []
Non-Scouse [kh]
Scouse [kx]
Scouse [x]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 5. Realisation of /k/ according to linguistic environment (%)
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
11/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
Helen Faye West
As with /t/, it is in [V_##] that we see an increase in [] (p = 0.001). In
further analysis of the data, however, it was clear that the discursive like, shown
in Figure 6, was most frequently used at the end of a sentence.
Discursive Non-discursive All other words
[V_#V] [V_#v] [V_##] [V_#V] [V_#v] [V_##] [V_#V] [V_v] [V_#v] [V_##]
n = 66 n = 144 n = 137 n = 7 n = 24 n = 18 n = 150 n = 314 n = 102 n = 142
Non-Scouse []
Non-Scouse [kh]
Scouse [kx]
Scouse [x]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 6. Realisation of likeaccording to age and linguistic environment (%)
Within this dataset the increase in the discursive usage of likehas increased
over time; from 5% in older speakers to 60% in younger speech. Moreover, discur-
sive like was found to be considerably more frequent sentence finally. As Figure 6
clearly demonstrates in relation to this, the glottal variant is particularly promoted
not only in word final, pre-pausal position, but its frequency in relation to discur-
sive like is particularly significant (p = 0.0001).
. Extra-linguistic data
e following data demonstrate the average overall contact that individuals have
with both Liverpool and Preston, with a score of 5 = daily, 4 = weekly, 3 = fort-
nightly, 2 = monthly, 1 = annually and 0 = never. e percentages present thespeakers frequency of [s] production on the leand [x] on the right (see appendix
for all individual production of all variants of /t/ and /k/).6
If we were to look at the overall averages, without looking at the individual,
we would see that the contact patterns by age group look equal for each location.
However, by analysing individual scores (Figure 7) two distinct clusters emerge,
with the working class speakers clearly visiting Preston more than Liverpool.
Liverpool, on the other hand, though preferred by the middle class speakers is
still visited by all speakers at least once a month. Despite this overall preference
. e individual coding system is as follows: F01 = Female 1, M01 = Male 1 and below
MF01 = Middle (age) Female 1, MM01 = Middle (age) Male 1 and so on.
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
12/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
A town between dialects
for Liverpool, however, the Scouse variants are comparatively low, due to the high
percentages of []. Similarly, there does not seem to be a correlation between
speakers who use Scouse forms more frequently and those who visit the city moreoen; for example, comparing the percentage usage of Scouse variants for speaker
M03 who visits the city weekly with the much higher percentage for speaker M09
who visits Liverpool annually.
25%
1%
3%
10%
5%
5%
9%
4%
3%
6%
6%
14%
3%
7%
6%
5%
15%
43%
5%
24%
14%
19%
33%
33%
70%
65%
46%
66%
45%
53%
29%
40%
M04
M03
M02
M01MC
WC
F04
F03
F02
F01
M09
M08
M06
M05
F08
F07
F06
F05
Liverpool Preston
= 5
= 4
= 3
= 2
= 1
= 0
Figure 7. Younger speakers frequencies of contact with people in Liverpool and Preston (heatmap using R 2.12.2, 5 = daily, 0 = never)
Contrary to the younger speakers, the data for the middle age group in Figure8
show a much clearer distinction between the two locations, with the majority
of informants never visiting Preston whilst less than a quarter visit monthly or
annually.
Liverpool, on the other hand, demonstrates more contact overall, with only
one individual never visiting the city, whilst the majority of informants visit on a
monthly or fortnightly basis. For some speakers there appears to be a correlationbetween contact and speech production; speakers MM03 and MM04, for example.
Yet, there are several anomalies; for instance in the comparison between speaker
MF01 and MF06. Of course, for the impact of contact to be a considered with
this age group we would have to assume that contact has an effect over a speakers
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
13/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
Helen Faye West
lifespan (see Sankoff& Blondeau 2007). Nonetheless, due to these unsatisfactory
correlations for both age groups, this paper will now turn to attitude as a potentially
more prominent factor influencing individual speech production.
25%
47%
35%
54%
29%
46%
5%
38%
44%
10%
40%
29%
34%
22%
39%9%
33%
57%
88%
57%
90%
77%
17%
36%
44%
45%
27%
25%
60%
80%
60%
39%35%
21%
MM11
MM10
MM09
MM08
MC
WC
MM07
MF08
MF07
MF06
MF05
MM04
MM03
MM02
MM01
MF04
MF03MF02
MF01
Liverpool Preston
= 5
= 4
= 3
= 2
= 1
= 0
Figure 8. Middleaged speakers frequencies of contact with people in Liverpool and Preston
(heat map using R 2.12.2, 5 = daily, 0 = never))
.
Attitudinal data
e following graphs illustrate the overt responses to accent. Figures 9 and10
respectively show younger and middle age responses to how different they feel
their individual accent is from Scouse and Lancashire (5 = the same, 1 = totally
different).
In the perception of their accents it is clear that the majority of speakers are
unsure as to how they sound. e younger speakers in particular cluster around
the middle for both accents with five out of sixteen speakers selecting an in-
between score of 3. Overall there is a slight leaning towards a Scouse perception inyounger middle class speech, whilst the younger working class orient their accent
towards Lancashire.
e opposite can be seen for the middle age speakers who perceive their
accent as more Lancashire than Scouse, with a number of speakers selecting a
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
14/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
A town between dialects
score of 1 for Scouse but 2 or 3 for Lancashire. e working class speakers, on the
other hand, display a stronger orientation towards Scouse.
Figures 11 and 12 display the younger and middle age groups response to thequestion: How offended would you be at your accent being identified as Scouse
and Lancashire (1 = very offended, 5 = not at all).
= 5
= 4
= 3
= 2
= 1
MM11
MM10
MM09
MM08
MC
WC
MM07
MF08
MF07
MF06
MF05
MM04
MM03
MM02
MM01
MF04
MF03
MF02
MF01
Scouse Lancashire
M04
M03
M02
M01
MC
WC
F04
F03
F02
F01
M09
M08
M06
M05
F08
F07
F06
F05
Scouse Lancashire
Figures 9 and 10. Younger and middle age groups perception of difference between their
ownaccent and that of Scouse/Lancashire (heat map using R 2.12.2)
MM11
MM10
MM09
MM08
MC
WC
MM07
MF08
MF07
MF06
MF05
MM04
MM03
MM02
MM01
MF04
MF03
MF02
MF01
Scouse Lancashire
= 5
= 4
= 3
= 2
= 1
M04
M03
M02
M01
MC
WC
F04
F03
F02
F01
M09
M08
M06
M05
F08
F07
F06
F05
Scouse Lancashire
Figures 11 and 12. Younger and middle age groups perception of Scouse and Lancashire
identification as an offence (heat map using R 2.12.2)
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
15/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
Helen Faye West
Surprisingly, here, the majority of younger speakers report offence at their
accent being identified as Scouse, including the younger middle class and middle
age working class who perceived their own accent as Scouse (Figures 9 and10).Both age groups show a more positive attitude towards being identified as
soundingLancashire.
. Convergence or divergence? Initial evidence from the social
andlinguistic data
Certainly one of the most robust findings of this study of Southport is the increase
in glottal stop in both /t/ and /k/. In the case of /t/ in particular, contrary to theprediction of Scouse influence, Southport appears to be in the reach of a much
broader process of diffusion; the spread of glottal stop across the UK (Kerswill&
Williams 2000). Perhaps it is historical linguistic similarity, as suggested by
Trudgills (1974) Gravity Model, that is the key factor in determining the direction
of change. As Johnson and Britain (2007) find in their study of the diffusion of /l/-
vocalisation across the Fens, levelling towards a vocalised variant occurred most
rapidly in areas that displayed dark /l/ initially, whilst areas with a history of clear
/l/ were shown to block the spread or show diffusion at much slower rates. PerhapsScouse, in its convergence with Irish varieties (see Knowles 1973; Irish mass immi-
gration in the 1800s) is now linguistically too dissimilar from the surrounding
Lancashire varieties which have not had the same extent of Irish contact.
e data for /k/ are less straightforward. Despite the initial observations that
there are parallels between /t/ and /k/ with an increase in []-realizations, the
occurrence of the glottal stop in the /k/ data set cannot be attributed to diffusion,
as this is not a common variant for most accents of British English. Moreover,
unlike the Scouse variants of /t/, Scouse forms of /k/ display an overall increase
in the speech production of younger people. So what are the motivations for
these forms?
Watson (2007) claims that [x] is a salient Scouse feature. Indeed, when
asked in the interviews whether they could think of a typically Scouse sound or
pronunciation, younger speakers nearly always mentioned the uvular [] variant,
while the older speakers recognised the fronted nature of the NURSE/SQUARE
merger as more salient (cf. Knowles 1973). e Scouse [x], however, is either
identified with the word like,or not attributed specifically to /k/, but perceived
as a sound which is randomly made in speech (Speaker M02). One could thenargue that the use of the glottal variant, parallel to the production of discursive
likein younger speech, is perhaps indicative of the salience of [x] in this word, and
speakers subsequent desire to avoid this feature.
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
16/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
A town between dialects
Turning now to the interplay of the extralinguistic factors and speech
production, contact with Liverpool appears, remarkably, to have very little impact.
Moreover, younger speakers show comparatively less contact with Scouse, yet anincrease in Scouse forms of /k/. When looking at the individual contact patterns,
we see that two of the middle aged females have considerably more contact with
Liverpool than the males, yet their production of Scouse forms is noticeably
less than their male counterparts. However, despite there not being a consistent
correlation within this age group as a whole, if we look at the linguistic out-put and
contact of the males in isolation, then a positive correlation can be seen between
increased contact with Liverpool and the production of Scouse forms.
e overt attitudinal data do provide some indication as to speakers preferred
orientation. However, overall, speakers take a middle of the road approach whenasked specifically for their opinion about Scouse, selecting scores of 2 or 3, perhaps
to appear politically correct in front of a stranger.roughout the interview,
however, numerous covert opinions surfaced. For instance, it was very common
for informants to complain that their council tax was now spent on more deprived
areas of Liverpool rather than on Southport, as a consequence of the shiof the
political border. Speakers true attitudes might therefore be discovered by closer
discourse analysis. e interplay of attitude and linguistic constraint, then, is in
need of further investigation.
References
Beal, J. 2010. Shiing Borders and Shiing Regional Identities. Language and Identitiesed. by
C. Llamas and D. Watt, 217226. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Boberg, Ch. 2000. Geolinguistic diffusion and the U.S.-Canada border, Language Variation
and Change 12: 124.
Boersma, P., and D. Weenink. 2009. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program].
Version 5.1.26, retrieved 24 Sep 2010. from http://www.praat.org/
Britain, D. 2010. Supralocal regional dialect levelling, Language and Identitiesed. by C. Llamas
and D. Watt, 193204. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Chambers, J. 2000. Region and language variation. English World-Wide 21 (2): 169199.
Clark, L., and K. Watson. 2011. Testing claims of a usage-based phonology with Liverpool
English t-to-r. English Language and Linguistics 15 (3): 523547.
Glauser, B. 1974. e Scottish-English Linguistic Border: Lexical Aspects, Basel: Francke Verlag.
Grey, C., and B. Richardson. 2007. Our friends in north: Relic dialects in the area between
Southport and Preston, e Mersey Sound: Liverpools Language, People and Places ed. by
A. Grant and C. Grey, 73105. Ormskirk: Open House Press.Honeybone, P. 2001. Lenition inhibition in Liverpool English. English Language and
Linguistics5 (2): 213249.
Johnson, W., and D. Britain. 2007. L-vocalisation in as a natural phenomenon: explorations in
sociophonology. Language Sciences 29: 294315.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/eww.21.2.02chahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1075/eww.21.2.02chahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1075/eww.21.2.02chahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000153http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000153http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000153http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000153http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000153http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000153http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000153http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000153http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/eww.21.2.02cha -
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
17/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
Helen Faye West
Kay, B. 1986. Scots: e Mither Tongue. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing.
Kerswill, P., and A. Williams. 2000. Creating a koine: children and language change in Milton
Keynes. Language in Society 29: 65115.
Knowles, G. 1973. Scouse: e urban dialect of Liverpool. Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds.Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Llamas, C. 2007. A place between places: language and identities in a border town. Language
in Society36 (4): 579604.
Llamas, C. 2010. Convergence and divergence across a national border, Language and Identities
ed. by C. Llamas and D. Watt, 227236. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Maguire, W., A. McMahon, and P. Heggarty. 2008. Integrating Social and Geographical
Variation by Phonetic Comparison and Network Analysis, Poster presented at Methods
13, University of Leeds.
Montgomery, C. 2007. Perceptions of Liverpool English, e Mersey Sound: Liverpools
Language, People and Places ed. by A. Grant and C. Grey, 164185.Ormskirk: Open HousePress.
Sankoff, G., and H. Blondeau. 2007. Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal
French. Language83/3: 560588.
Shockey, L. 2003. Sound Patterns of Spoken English.Hong Kong: Blackwell.
Stoddart, J., C. Upton, and J. Widdowson. 1999. Sheffield dialect in the 1990s: revisiting the
concept of NORMs, Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles ed. by P. Foulkes and
G. Docherty, 7289.London: Arnold.
Stuart-Smith, J. 1999. Glasgow: accent and voice quality, Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the
British Islesed. by P. Foulkes and G. Docherty 201220. London: Arnold.
Trudgill, P. 1974. Linguistic change and diffusion: Description and explanation in sociolinguis-
tic dialect geography. Language in Society 2: 215246.
Vandekerckhove, R., and D. Britain. 2009. Dialects in Western Europe: a balanced picture of
language death innovation, and change. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
196/197: 16.
Watson, K. 2007. Illustrations of the IPA: Liverpool English. Journal of the International
Phonetic Association 37/3: 351360.
Williams, A., and P. Kerswill. 1999. Dialect levelling: Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull, Urban
Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles ed. by P. Foulkes and G. Docherty, 141162.
London: Arnold.
Websites:
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/:Merseyside_UK_district_map_%28blank%29.
svg (08/08/2011)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070455http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070455http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070455http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070455http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070455http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070455http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070455http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070455 -
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
18/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
A town between dialects
Appendix
(1) Actual scores and percentages of younger speakers individual /t/ production.
YOUNGER [] [s] [t] [ts] TOTAL [] (%) [s] (%) [t] (%) [ts] (%)
F01 66 0 0 3 69 95.65 0 0 4.34
F02 53 1 1 4 59 89.83 1.69 1.69 6.77
F03 77 1 0 3 81 95.06 1.23 0 3.70
F04 69 0 0 4 73 94.52 0 0 5.47
F05 123 4 2 2 131 93.89 3.05 1.52 1.52
F06 78 2 1 3 84 92.85 2.38 1.19 3.57
F07 119 7 1 2 129 92.24 5.42 0.77 1.55
F08 76 0 1 2 79 96.20 0 1.26 2.53
M01 105 10 4 2 121 86.77 8.26 3.30 1.65
M02 55 1 1 1 58 94.82 1.72 1.72 1.72
M03 79 0 0 1 80 98.75 0 0 1.25
M04 47 3 6 15 71 66.19 4.22 8.45 21.12
M05 105 7 3 11 126 83.33 5.55 2.38 8.73
M06 109 4 1 3 117 93.16 3.41 0.85 2.56
M08 102 2 0 3 107 95.32 1.86 0 2.80
M09 93 0 0 3 96 96.87 0 0 3.12
(2)Actual scores and percentages of younger speakers individual /k/ production.
YOUNGER Glottal [k ] [kx] [x] TOTAL Glottal (%) [k ] (%) [kx] (%) [x](%)
F01 12 4 4 4 24 50 16.66 16.66 16.66
F02 21 5 3 10 39 53.84 12.82 7.69 25.64
F03 5 8 3 0 16 31.25 50 18.75 0
F04 4 8 2 0 14 28.57 57.14 14.28 0
F05 27 6 9 13 55 49.09 10.90 16.36 23.63
F06 17 12 5 7 41 41.46 29.26 12.19 17.07
F07 10 8 5 15 38 26.31 21.05 13.15 39.47
F08 16 7 9 10 42 38.09 16.66 21.42 23.80
M01 21 8 4 5 38 55.26 21.05 10.52 13.15
M02 8 12 1 0 21 38.09 57.14 4.76 0
M03 8 15 10 8 41 19.51 36.58 24.39 19.51
M04 8 9 1 2 20 40 45 5 10
(Continued)
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
19/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
Helen Faye West
YOUNGER Glottal [k ] [kx] [x] TOTAL Glottal (%) [k ] (%) [kx] (%) [x](%)
M05 9 5 14 13 41 21.95 12.19 34.14 31.70
M06 10 9 9 7 35 28.57 25.71 25.71 20
M08 4 2 4 7 17 23.52 11.76 23.52 41.17
M09 4 2 2 12 20 20 10 10 60
(3) Actual scores and percentages of middle age speakers individual /t/ production.
MIDDLE [] [s] [t] [ts] TOTAL [] (%) [s] (%) [t] (%) [ts] (%)
MF01 80 2 9 42 133 60.15 1.50 6.76 31.57
MF02 89 1 49 12 151 58.94 0.66 32.45 7.94
MF03 45 0 24 4 74 60.81 0 33.78 5.40
MF04 35 0 9 1 45 77.77 0 20 2.22
MF05 13 6 1 5 25 52 24 4 20
MF06 19 6 5 9 39 48.71 15.38 12.82 23.07
MF07 90 1 4 1 96 93.75 1.04 4.16 1.04
MF08 41 5 26 13 85 48.23 5.88 30.58 15.29
MM01 32 10 1 5 48 66.66 20.83 2.08 10.41
MM02 49 4 0 16 69 71.01 5.79 0 23.18
MM03 21 2 0 12 35 60 5.71 0 34.28
MM04 26 0 1 1 28 92.85 0 3.57 3.57
MM07 34 6 2 9 51 66.66 11.76 3.92 17.64
MM08 10 3 2 11 26 38.46 11.53 7.69 42.30
MM09 35 9 1 10 55 63.63 16.36 1.81 18.18
MM10 24 20 5 5 54 44.44 37.03 9.25 9.25
MM11 41 0 12 2 55 74.54 0 21.81 3.63
(4) Actual scores and percentages of middle speakers individual /k/ production.
MIDDLE Glottal [k ] [kx] [x] TOTAL Glottal (%) [k ] (%) [kx] (%) [x] (%)
MF01 1 18 4 1 24 4.16 75 16.66 4.166
MF02 3 25 11 4 43 6.97 58.13 25.58 9.30
MF03 3 11 6 3 23 13.04 47.82 26.08 13.04
MF04 3 5 10 2 20 15 25 50 10MF05 0 5 1 4 10 0 50 10 40
MF06 2 3 1 3 9 22.22 33.33 11.11 33.33
(Continued)
-
5/27/2018 Accent Levelling Helen Faye West
20/20
. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
A town between dialects
MIDDLE Glottal [k ] [kx] [x] TOTAL Glottal (%) [k ] (%) [kx] (%) [x] (%)
MF07 8 10 6 4 28 28.57 35.71 21.42 14.28
MF08 0 20 4 0 24 0 83.33 16.66 0
MM01 1 2 6 10 19 5.26 10.52 31.57 52.63
MM02 1 5 4 5 15 6.66 33.33 26.66 33.33
MM03 0 6 2 0 8 0 75 25 0
MM04 2 6 2 1 11 18.18 54.54 18.18 9.09
MM07 1 3 10 10 24 4.166 12.5 41.66 41.66
MM08 0 1 0 9 10 0 10 0 90
MM09 1 2 0 4 7 14.28 28.57 0 57.14MM10 1 1 0 15 17 5.88 5.88 0 88.23
MM11 3 3 6 2 14 21.42 21.42 42.85 14.28